INNOBLOG

A brewing discussion about Starbucks’ new coffee flavor highlights a challenge facing innovation-seeking incumbents: Which customers should we listen to?

As part of a broader effort to reinvigorate the company, Starbucks recently rolled out a mild-tasting coffee called “Pike Place Roast.” It has quietly moved away from offering bolder-tasting coffees, such as its Sumatra brand, particularly in the afternoon.

Starbucks brought Pike Place Roast to market in response to complaints from Consumer Reports and others that its coffee tasted bitter or burnt. A small group commercialized the brew in six months—an astonishingly short period of time in the food industry.

While Consumer Reports and the mass-market has cheered, a vocal group of core Starbucks loyalists panned the coffee—one reviewer on a Starbucks Web site designed to solicit customer feedback called it a “fundamental, grievous error”—as watered-down and away from what makes Starbucks distinct.

Incumbents seeking to create new growth often face a version of this dilemma. Should we listen to our best, most loyal customers, or should we turn our ears towards customers we’re not serving well, or even to customers we are not serving at all?

Read the rest on Scott's Harvard Business blog, Innovation Insights.

As mentioned, this morning I did the "Q" part of a 75-minute Q&A session with P&G CEO A.G. Lafley. The discussion was wide-ranging, covering everything from the need to re-think marketing and advertising to the benefits of a liberal arts education. At the end of the session, I told the audience that my six takeaways were:

1. In an age of disruption, growth is getting increasingly difficult.
2. Companies need to take the long view. Lafley said he finds it hard to watch CNBC for more than 7 minutes because the focus is so short-term.
3. The customer needs to be the center of the innovation equation. When Lafley took over as CEO in 2000, he said he saw too many managers on their cellphones, or buried in spreadsheets, in essence "showing customers their behind."
4. Experimentation is key. Lafley talked about the value of giving customers even crude prototypes to test an idea. He also described how different parts of his organization approach innovation differently, and that's a good thing.
5. Complex organizations need to simplify to successfully innovate. Lafley said he seeks Sesame Street simplicity.
6. The CEO has to be the "Chief External Officer" to manage external pressure and the "Chief Innovation Officer" to push the innovation agenda forward.

Read the rest at Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights.

If any of you are going to be at the Front End of Innovation conference this week, stop by the Innosight booth on Tuesday. I'll be there, and would love to meet any of my readers!

Also, on Wednesday morning I'll be doing the "Q" part of a Q&A with Procter & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley about "The Art and Science of Game-Changing Innovation." The discussion will focus on some of the key messages in his recently released book. I'd love to have one of the questions come from you, so suggest a question, and I'll try to pick one or two of the best ones (and of course let you know what A.G. has to say).

Feel free to add a question in the comments here or on my Harvard Management blog (link below).

Thanks!

Cross-posted from Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights

The Fortune 500 issue had a fascinating story about Amazon.com. “It’s easy to believe that Jeff Bezos is one of the great innovators,” the story noted. “But that’s not exactly the case. His rise into Fortune 500-dom actually has little to do with innovation and more to do with iteration.”

It pains me when I see innovation and iteration painted as opposed in some way. In fact, the only way to successfully innovate is to be prepared to iterate like crazy.

There is a misbegotten belief that new growth businesses arise fully formed out of an innovator’s head. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Carefully look at the history of just about any innovation success and you’ll find a course correction, if not an outright failure.

There are many classic examples of innovation through iteration. Google was just another search engine until it iterated its way to AdWords and AdSense. About three months before the public launch of the iPhone, Apple CEO Steve Jobs sent the design team back to the drawing board because of flaws in the product’s design. James Dyson created more than 5,000 failed prototypes of his wildly successful vacuum cleaner. And so on. ...

Read the rest at Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights

If you work in a large company and you want to become humble quickly, check out Stall Points, a fascinating stream of research by the Corporate Executive Board that was recently a cover story for the Harvard Business Review. The research shows that almost all companies hit a point where historical growth rates decelerate. Once the corporate growth engine stalls, it is very hard to restart.

The study involved close to 500 companies that have appeared on the Fortune 100 or international equivalents over the past 50 years. Close to 90 percent of those companies experienced a stall, or “secular reversals in company growth fortunes.” Only 50 percent of companies that stalled were able to grow even moderately over the next decade.

There are many reasons why growth becomes increasingly difficult as a company grows. One challenge is that the hurdle for new initiatives becomes so high that many potential game-changing initiatives never see the light of day.

A few weeks ago I was with a group of senior executives at a Fortune 100 company. We were talking about the strategic objectives of that company’s innovation efforts. One executive said that $1 billion felt like a reasonable target for a generic new growth initiative. Another said, “A billion is nice, but at our size we really need to set the target at $10 billion.”

Mathematically, of course, the executive is right. It got me thinking, though. Only 261 public U.S. companies had $10 billion in revenues last year. How many of the high-flying start-up companies over the last decade reached $10 billion in revenue in 10 years? Well, Google hit $10 billion in its eighth year (2006) and … I think that’s it.  …

Read the rest at Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights

"What’s best practice?” Just about any manager seeking to improve corporate performance has fielded this question from leadership. The theory is that the manager should find a successful company, find out what practices have made them successful, mimic those practices, and expect success.

However, blindly worshiping at the altar of best practices is dangerous. The problem is that practices that work incredibly well in one circumstance can be ill-suited for another circumstance. Even if your company has successfully overcome a problem in the past, it is always worth asking if the circumstances have changed in a way that means your approach needs to change as well.

Read the rest at Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights.

I thought I’d write a short post providing some immediate reflections from an interesting panel discussion I facilitated today.

The panel, titled “Innovation: Change Happens,” featured Dow Corning Chairman, CEO and President Stephanie Burns, Eastman Kodak President and COO Phil Faraci, and Procter & Gamble Chairman and CEO A.G. Lafley. It was part of the Newspaper Association of America and American Society of News Editors “Capital Conference 2008.”

Each of the panelists provided a short account of their respective company’s change efforts and answered audience questions. The six key points that seemed to be in common across the three companies were:

• The need for a crisis or some kind of “burning platform” to motivate transformational change
• A clear vision and strategy … that allows room for iteration
• A recognition that transformation is a multi-year journey
• A need to put the customer or consumer in the center of the transformation equation
• The critical importance of demonstrating to skeptics that different actions can lead to different results
• The need to over-communicate to employees, customers, stakeholders, and shareholders

Read the rest at Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights